Liverpool V Chelsea (may contain goals if we're lucky!)

MrJoeSoap

dublindude wrote:

I put €4000 on under 2.5 goals. Odds were 8/15.

I was tempted to put 2k on the 0 - 0 (a very obvious result) but my nerves said no.

New clothes for me tomorrow!!! WOOO!!!!

I was seriously ****tin' it though...

(note: the winnings are actually only €2133.00)

Well you put your money where your mouth was, fair play.

Kingp35

dublindude wrote:

I put €4000 on under 2.5 goals. Odds were 8/15.

I was tempted to put 2k on the 0 - 0 (a very obvious result) but my nerves said no.

New clothes for me tomorrow!!! WOOO!!!!

I was seriously ****tin' it though...

(note: the winnings are actually only €2133.00)

very good bet. I should have thought of that myself. Fair play

Mossy Monk

how do you get 2.5 goals?

PiE

The sooner Roman pulls out, Chelsea go into liquidation and their awful memory is erased from footballs history books, the better.

Wasn't as bad a game as some are making out though, was pretty fast-paced for the most part and I've seen worse games between the two.

Kingp35

Mossy Monk wrote:

how do you get 2.5 goals?

Basically means if there is 2 goals or less in a match you win but if there is 3 or more you lose

MrJoeSoap

PiE wrote:

The sooner Roman pulls out, Chelsea go into liquidation and their awful memory is erased from footballs history books, the better.

Very harsh.

Chelsea did have fans pre-Abramovic you know?

el rabitos

Chelsea did have fans pre-Abramovic you know?

yeah they did...in west london. 2 or 3 up behind a hill in sligo and several in mongolia

MrJoeSoap

el rabitos wrote:

2 or 3 up behind a hill in sligo

I know the ones you're talking about. Pair of boyos! Haven't been seen since Zola left.

Seriously though, I know a few people who have followed Chelsea for years.

Jivin Turkey

Surprise surprise, we had the draw that pleased both teams. Both managers go home satisifed knowing that qualification is still more than well within their grasp.

Overall a reasonably entertaining game IMO.

I cant believe people are giving out in the slightest, did you expect anything different? A few chances, a few (very) cautious teams, playing a game that means shag all (to be honest) in the big sceme of things in the season, but is mutually beneficial if they draw? I pocketed €50 from it (unsuprisingly) it was actually one of those games that I wished I bet more on (how many times have I said that ).

And as for Dunphy and Co giving out about the state of English football, a few years ago when Italian footballs top clubs played out 0-0 draws game after game, it was hailed as football at its best, pure quality defending, now its English clubs they are all to quick to get the dig in.

Dunphy doesnt have a clue, I only wish he provided an email address to his column where I could ask him about some of the ridiculous points he made.

As for the criticism aimed at some of Chelsea's players and their price tags, again its just so typical Dunphy. Chelsea pay over the odds because they are forced to because of their more than publicised bank balance (at the same time because said bank balance is so large it makes no odds to them). Essien looked class tonight IMO, he may not have the most incisive pass in the world, but he is probably one of the strongest players I have ever seen. At least four or five times he went for a shoulder to shoulder and flattened an opposition player. Lampard is there to do the incisive passing.

SWP is pure class, anyone who actually follows football will know this. His last two years have been phenomenal. If he were the latest Italian starlet on the block he would have been a bargain, but because he is English he is "over-hyped" and "over-rated".

Dunphy is such a moron, he might give it the "Chelsea will never be remembered" but the reality of it is, the famous "unbeaten" Arsenal team will never be remembered because they never proved it on a regular basis. If this Chelsea team goes on to win numerous league titles (and goodness knows what else) they will be remembered regardless of whether they play attractive football or if they could bore stone to death.

Great teams are remembered for what they won, not for how they won it. I fear that we may be watching one of the great teams of this generation (money or no money).

LFCFan

hopefully the Russian Mafia will find out Roman ripped them off and he'll go into hiding and the money will dry up and the club will go back to when they were just an average team and the premiership gets some sense of reality back again. I have full respect for teams like United (while at the same time hating their guts )who gradually build up to being a great side but I despise the way Chelski have done it. They were on the verge of going bust, struggling to play decent football and all of a sudden, they have hundreds of millions to spend and they are the dominant force in the Premiership. Anyone who tries to argue that the money has nothing to do with it, are truely demented. If Jose had taken over Pre Roman, he'd have taken years to get even close to the level they are at now.

RE*AC*TOR

i wouldn't agree that Chelsea were struggling to play good football before Ambramovich.

I'd stretch to say they were playing better football.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

gracehopper

Jivin Turkey wrote:

a few years ago when Italian footballs top clubs played out 0-0 draws game after game, it was hailed as football at its best,

dont know about everyone else but i never thought italian football was football at its best. Wright-Philips is a decent player but i'd agree with dunphy about drogba "24m for a donkey" r something along them lines

redspider

Well, this game wont go down as a classic. Liverpool tried at times but their stall was set out with their formation and lack of quality players. The Chelsea team played more negative football than usual, but there were quite a few half chances. Chelsea, as the evidence shows, are a very difficult team to score against. It takes a half-chance to be converted, and as someone said, perhaps an early goal in this game would have changed things around, or a penalty or 3! A goal can change a game dramatically and open things up more.

In terms of formations, Liverpool's was fairly ineffective. It was a 4-2-3-1 formation as follows:

---

Reina

---

Finnan - Carragher - Hyypia - Traore
---- Hamann

---

Alonso ----
Cisse

---

Gerrard ---- Garcia

---

Crouch

---

Reina - played well at times but had a few very dodgy moments again on crosses and could have cost Liverpool a goal

Finnan - was very solid, kept Robben and Duff at bay

Carragher - did a good job on Drogba, Mr dependable.

Hyppia - was only left on his own a couple of times and was easily skinned for pace by Robben to create Chelsea's best shot on goal in the match

Traore - all legs as usual but I was really surpirsed how he easily dealt with Duff. He had him completely in his pocket for the whol match. Every jink Damo tried to do, Traore read it and disrupted it. He completely nullified Duffer. I lambast him as mush as anyone as he is not up to standard, he is gangly, awkward and uncoordinated, but he did a solid job in this match.

Hamann - did an ok job, got stuck in quite well and moved the ball around quickly in midfield. Provides great cover for the back four and passes well.

Alonso - in a different team Alonso would be played in Gerrard's position. He's too far back to avail of his skills of threading through passes to the strikers ... or should I say striker! He had a good game, and battled well for a player that wouldnt get on any GAA or Rugby team!

Cisse - was very ineffective. Hardly got the ball and stayed out too far wide on the right. Probably was asked by Benitez to go out there to provide width, but he is not a winger. He has pace, but no close control or dribbling skills. Read the manual on being a winger Benitez! He would have been much better getting closer to Crouch and playing off him.

Gerrard - had a good game, tried his best, but just didnt have enough quality players around him (ie: left, right and straight ahead) to create anything wide open. Didnt get any of his shots on target in the few opportunities he had to do so.

Garcia - he upped his game for this one, but still not good enough all round. He did get into the box on a couple of occasions and you can never tell with him if he will create an opening or not. Gave the ball away less than usual but still far too much.

Crouch - I thought in the first half he was quite poor apart from a few lay-offs he got right. But he is a low perentage target man, and his close ball control is not so good. The other players also dont know whether he is going to take just 2 touches or more. He did better in the 2nd half. Chelsea did battle to control him, Liverpool got loads of free-kicks because of him. But, that was about it. I think Liverpool would do much better with a scorer in this position and keep Crouch for the Birmingham away games.

Penalty!
The main incidents of the match were the penalty shouts. Liverpool certainly had a case for several. The Ref was either afraid to give them (for fear of Chelsea, Abramovich, Mourinho wrath) or else had a recent cruise in Monaco on a yacht owned by a Russian company. Either way, he wasnt giving much to Liverpool in the box.

The 1st one was the Drogba lunge on Hyypia. Overall, I was surprised to see how much defending Drogba does in the box. He comes back for every set play and corner, leaving Chelsea with just Robben and Duff on breakaway duty. The ball was knocked down (for once) by Crouch as Terry mis-judged it, and into the danger area around the 6-yard box. Drogba was going to clear it but Hyypia got in front of him and basically Drogba kicked Hyypia on the back of his leg without getting the ball. This is a foul in the rule book. The ref saw it but didnt blow. Drogba glanced at the ref in anticipation, knowing his guilt and hoping he would get away with it. Hyypia didnt go down in an instant and roll around the pitch in "agony", mainly because he was hurt. If he did, it probably would have been given. Lesson for Benitez: send Hyypia to the Jurgen Klinsmann acting school (although I personally hate that element and tactic in football).

The 2nd was the pull on Garcia's shirt. I forget who knocked the ball through over the top but Garcia ran between Terry and Ferrera on the edge of the box, brought the ball down with his head, and got his arm pulled when running head on to meet Cech on the penalty spot by Ferrera . If he would have gone down, perhaps a penalth would have been given. It was a slight foul at best, but the intent was there. Again, Jurgen Klinsmann would probably have "won" a red-card and a penalthy with a 6.0 dive.

The 3rd was very blatant. A header from Carragher around the 10-yard distance heading towards a post, and the ball was digged with the forearm by Gallas volleyball style and totally intentionally. How an official did not see this is indeed strange. Maybe all officials have been on yachts recently. Anyway, Gallas knew what he was doing and the stadium thought it was a penalty.

As expected, the match was a tight game, chess-like, so no surprises there. Perhaps not one for entertainment value, clearly, but when defences seldom make mistakes, it can take an incident to get a goal, such as a penalty, a free-kick, etc. If as a viewer you dont like good defending, then you would have hated last night. ie: Hansen as an analyst would appreciate the match a lot more than Brady or Lineker.

There are some good points made in postings, but I'll take this one:

Jivin Turkey wrote:

And as for Dunphy and Co giving out about the state of English football ... Dunphy doesnt have a clue ... As for the criticism aimed at some of Chelsea's players and their price tags, again its just so typical Dunphy. Dunphy is such a moron ... Great teams are remembered for what they won, not for how they won it.

I watched it on RTE as well and Dunphy as usual went over the top. Dunphy is a moron, I agree with you, as he contradicts his opinions and views on football from one year to the next. He argues with Bill O'Herlihy who is essentially clueless. For example, in recent years he has been giving out about Real Madrid, because they lack the mettle to win trophies and are just clowns and entertainers. He has been getting on Beckham's case, a player who clearly has natural footballing ability in certain areas, most notably free-kicks and crosses (and hairstyles ;-) ). But last night Dunphy was stating how entertaining his beloved Man U are/were, with the likes of Beckham and Giggs compared with Chelsea's physical game and defences capabilities. He even mentioned Real Madrid as being entertaining and better to watch. He cant have it both ways, give out to teams for being entertaining and give out to teams for not being entertaining. Have th public sniffed him out yet? Last season he was saying how good the likes of Wright-Phillips was for Man C, now all of a sudden he is no good.

Dunphy is a bull****ter, and he knows it, and he does it because he can get away with it. He is found out though on many's an occasion. But the Irish public lap it up and want to hear him more and more. Dunphy is a donkey.

Liam Brady, from an Arsenal point of view obviously, can only be jealous of the amount of money Chelsea have at their disposal. (I am against the Chelsea money for another reason as Abramovich is a crook, a rich one, but a crook nonetheless). He also would clash with the tactics they deploy, but last night he had a particular case of sour grapes, no doubt exasperated by the poor start Arsenal have had, the solid start Chelsea have had, entertaining or not, and the injury to Henry, etc. Probably the last thing he wanted to do was watch a Chelsea match but he had to and he was not happy at all.

Overall, this match didnt matter. 0-0 suits both teams in a way. The match on Sunday is more important, but again, Chelsea will keep it tight and look for a goal. Perhaps an early goal from Liverpool will change the match around. Benitez should try out different tactics, use Riise perhaps with Cisse and Garcia up front, or Baros and Owen (hold on, they are no longer there ;-) ).

redspider

vorbis

if the match didn't matter, would it have been too much to ask for either side to attempt to play some attacking football?

talla

LFCFan wrote:

hopefully the Russian Mafia will find out Roman ripped them off and he'll go into hiding and the money will dry up and the club will go back to when they were just an average team and the premiership gets some sense of reality back again.

The bad news is, Abramovich sold his oil company to the the Russian government for 8 Billion yesterday.

Jivin Turkey

redspider wrote:

I watched it on RTE as well and Dunphy as usual went over the top. Dunphy is a moron, I agree with you, as he contradicts his opinions and views on football from one year to the next. He argues with Bill O'Herlihy who is essentially clueless. For example, in recent years he has been giving out about Real Madrid, because they lack the mettle to win trophies and are just clowns and entertainers. He has been getting on Beckham's case, a player who clearly has natural footballing ability in certain areas, most notably free-kicks and crosses (and hairstyles ;-) ). But last night Dunphy was stating how entertaining his beloved Man U are/were, with the likes of Beckham and Giggs compared with Chelsea's physical game and defences capabilities. He even mentioned Real Madrid as being entertaining and better to watch. He cant have it both ways, give out to teams for being entertaining and give out to teams for not being entertaining. Have th public sniffed him out yet? Last season he was saying how good the likes of Wright-Phillips was for Man C, now all of a sudden he is no good.

Dunphy is a bull****ter, and he knows it, and he does it because he can get away with it. He is found out though on many's an occasion. But the Irish public lap it up and want to hear him more and more. Dunphy is a donkey.

Summed up my feelings perfectly and in a far more articulate (and probably far more sober) way.

I agree on Brady as well, but in fairness to Liam he usually provides some good insight all be it with an Arsenal bias, particularly as he has experience playing abroad as well as at all levels of the game.

Giles as well is good, at least he sticks to his guns, and is not afraid to confront Dunphy.

And you got to just love Bill. Okey doke.

Pigman II

talla wrote:

Abramovich sold his oil company to the the Russian government for 8 Billion yesterday.

He should blow the lot and buy Rio Ferdinand til the end of the season.

AARRRGH

This game is repeating itself on Sunday.

What do you expect to happen? Another low scoring game? I really can't see it being anything other than that.

A heavy bet on under 3.5 (not 2.5) goals would be very safe IMO.

PHB

Except Chelsea want to win on sunday, so I expect some goals

BaZmO*

redspider wrote:

......the stuff you said about Dunphy.....

Yeah, I agree totally. Even though I do actually like Dunphy (in a kinda Pantomime baddy way) he just talks sh1te and gets found out too much. Bill the Tool even challenged him last night on his infamous statement about, "if you want to be entertained go the the movies" and Dunphy just tried to squirm his way out of it.

redspider wrote:

Liam Brady, from an Arsenal point of view obviously, can only be jealous of the amount of money Chelsea have at their disposal.

Yeah, I get that vibe from him too. And he has a cheek calling Chelsea boring after the history his beloved Arsenal have.

B.

evad_lhorg

chelsea will win on Sunday. id put money on it if i had any.

p.pete

evad_lhorg wrote:

chelsea will win on Sunday. id put money on it if i had any.

Lost it all gambling?
I agree PHB - Champions League group is all about not getting beaten, then grab one or two victories and you should be in a good position in the group. It's more important to stop the opposition getting 3 points.

This situation isn't as extreme in the PL so Chelsea will throw more at us. Liverpool will still be up for it so it makes for a better game then last nights.

el rabitos

The Champions League group stage is all about the race to 9 points. its usually the magic number when it comes to qualifying. so neither team last night wanted to take the risk of losing when 1 point suited each.

the "boring boring chelsea" chants at the end of the match were perfectly timed.

the fact is, and i agree with Dunphy on this, for the amount of money chelsea have paid for these players they SHOULD be able to defend AND be able to attack. not just defend like they did last night.

chelsea should be irresistable going forward with the amount of money they've spent on players.

anyway, chelsea are still that loser team that nobody wanted to support. it took way over a hundred million to win the league and still they cant defend it in style.

Chucky the tree

el rabitos wrote:

anyway, chelsea are still that loser team that nobody wanted to support. it took way over a hundred million to win the league and still they cant defend it in style.

Oh dear.


No one supports chelsea? Ah so thats why stanford bridge is empty every week...


Cant defend it in style? They are 11 or so points clear, won all there matches, scored 14, conceded 1, the bookies have already paid out on them winning the league and its still September. If thats not style i dont know what is.


The sooner people realise that football is about winning and not how attacking minded you play the better.

el rabitos

Oh dear.


No one supports chelsea? Ah so thats why stanford bridge is empty every week...


Cant defend it in style? They are 11 or so points clear, won all there matches, scored 14, conceded 1, the bookies have already paid out on them winning the league and its still September. If thats not style i dont know what is.


The sooner people realise that football is about winning and not how attacking minded you play the better..

theres what? 16 million people in london. i'm sure they have 45,000 or so fans in west london to go to the matches

being 11 points clear and all the rest is nothing. pundits and papers have been comparing chelsea to a "machine" because of how they play but with the money they have spent they should be a machine that steamrolls teams and do it with flair and good attacking

if u think a team cant be a "machine" and rip teams appart then go look at AC Milan back in 1994.

MrJoeSoap

I'm with Chucky on this one.

Plus there are 7million people in London, 11 if you include the boroughs.

They have plenty of fans, lets not kid ourselves.

el rabitos

jaysus man, not gonna get into an arguement about populations here.

course chelsea have fans....they travel to the matches on a big blue bandwaggon with chelsea written on the side....u might have seen the same fans on board the arsenal/man u bandwaggons in recent years.

AARRRGH

el rabitos wrote:

jaysus man, not gonna get into an arguement about populations here.

course chelsea have fans....they travel to the matches on a big blue bandwaggon with chelsea written on the side....u might have seen the same fans on board the arsenal/man u bandwaggons in recent years.

When I was young, people used to spit on me for wearing my Arsenal jersey. How the times have changed...

MrJoeSoap

el rabitos wrote:

course chelsea have fans....they travel to the matches on a big blue bandwaggon with chelsea written on the side....u might have seen the same fans on board the arsenal/man u bandwaggons in recent years.

Oh so cynical.

I honestly don't know anyone who has started supporting Chelsea post-Abramovic, but I went to school with a couple of Chelsea fans and my mates dad follows them.

BaZmO*

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Oh so cynical.

I honestly don't know anyone who has started supporting Chelsea post-Abramovic, but I went to school with a couple of Chelsea fans and my mates dad follows them.

You might not know them but there are PLENTY of them out there. But that's just a symptom of success I suppose.

B.

redspider

dublindude wrote:

I put €4000 on under 2.5 goals. Odds were 8/15. (note: the winnings are ... €2133.00)

Just to comment that this was not a sure-thing bet. The Liverpool Chelsea game was widely expected to be low scoring, no-one was expecting a 4-3. but a low scoring 2-1 result (ie: 3 goals) was possible, and has not been unheard of from Liverpool Chelsea in recent seasons (look at the Carling Cup final).

4k is a big bet and should only be placed if you know you can afford to lose it.

tread carefully ....

redspider

AARRRGH

redspider wrote:

Just to comment that this was not a sure-thing bet. The Liverpool Chelsea game was widely expected to be low scoring, no-one was expecting a 4-3. but a low scoring 2-1 result (ie: 3 goals) was possible, and has not been unheard of from Liverpool Chelsea in recent seasons (look at the Carling Cup final).

4k is a big bet and should only be placed if you know you can afford to lose it.

tread carefully ....

redspider

I bet quite a bit and was very confident of this one. Let's just say I'm glad I had the balls to do it!

But I agree - 4k bets are not for everyone.